On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 07:33, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote: > On 17 April 2012 02:16, Anthony Liguori <aligu...@us.ibm.com> wrote: >> On 04/16/2012 05:54 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: >>> Yuck! Nack, this is way too invasive. Testing frameworks >>> shouldn't require random pointless changes to every board >>> model. >> >> I think the issue is that all of these machines mandate a -kernel option. >> qtest doesn't care if you pass a -kernel but requiring a kernel in order to >> test a device sucks especially if you don't possess the toolchain to build >> such a kernel. > > Just testing a device shouldn't require running a particular > board model either, of course.
The goal is obviously to make comprehensive tests for all devices in all boards. Also, if a device is only used by a certain board then yes, that particular board model is required. >> I think we should probably refactor the boards to do something more useful >> if a kernel isn't specified verses just buggering out. > > I don't inherently object if you can define something that's genuinely > more useful. I'm not sure "start the CPU and have it execute through > zeroed out RAM so the user gets no indication they've forgotten something" > really counts, though... The error could be downgraded to a warning. > > -- PMM
